death squad drama erupting upon itself gore and mayhem disgusting bloody pieces of everyone's mind.
    fuck this, she said and then began telling a story about her father's dog that reminded her of a parable from the bible though she didn't seem too clear about which parable it was and the story about the dog didn't arrive at any specific point either. the boys talked some about tv shows and she tried to interject with another story about her father shooting a deer which may or may not have been a continuation of the story about the dog. she gave it a few starts and it didn't mix or jell and she dropped it and sat back giggling.
    and the man in the room painted the walls again. pathetic abstract nightmares in sickly shades of pale depressed color highlighted with day-glo for a 3d effect.
    and this was in another dream he had.

    and the theater is burning. and the play begins.
    two people walking around in circles.
    one: i am wondering if this is an illusion. how does one tell if it is or isn't?
    two: what is it you are wondering if it is an illusion or not?
    one: everything i perceive.
    two: what are you perceiving?
    one: i perceive myself. i perceive you. i perceive a theater that is burning.
    two: i perceive myself on an island. i am walking on a beach.
    one: am i on the beach with you?
    two: no. you are where you said you are - in the burning theater.
    one: but i said that i perceive you here with me as well.
    two: i am wherever you perceive me as being. can i deny it? should i argue with you about it?
    one: no. we should not argue about this. we would be arguing about what may be an illusion.
    two: do you think it might be so?
    one: i am not sure. i ask again, how does one know?
    two: one cannot know. one can only believe that it is or isn't.
    one: what if one cannot decide which to believe?
    two: flip a coin.
    one: what if the coin is also an illusion?
    two: does it matter as long as it lands heads or tails?
    one: and if it doesn't?
    two: worry about that if and when it happens. has it happened?
    one: i haven't flipped a coin yet.
    two: do you have a coin?
    one: yes. (takes coin out of pocket)
    two: then flip it.
    one: (flips coin) it's tails.
    two: what does that mean?
    one: i don't know. i forgot to call it one or the other.
    two: well, call it and flip it again.
    one: (picks up coin) ok. heads, this is not an illusion. tails, it is. (flips coin) tails. this is an illusion.
    two: so what does that mean?
    one: i'm not sure. what do you think it means?
    two: i means that everything is an illusion or maybe only what you believe is an illusion is an illusion.
    one: does it mean that?
    two: that's what you called.
    one: but is it right?
    two: you weren't flipping a coin to decide whether it was right or not. you were flipping whether you should believe is an illusion.
    one: oh yeah. so i should believe that everything is an illusion?
    two: if you go by what you called flipping the coin, yes.
    one: should i do that?
    two: i cannot tell you that. i will not tell you that. you should not let me tell you that.
    one: i should flip the coin again.
    two: you'll be flipping the coin forever until you decide to make a decision without it.
    one: so i shouldn't have flipped it at all?
    two: you didn't need to.
    one: no, i suppose i didn't. but i did. i need to decide whether to go with it or not.
    two: i would seem so.
    one: i will go with it. it is the only information i have.
    two: so now what?
    one: so now i have to deal with this all being an illusion.
    two: is that any different than dealing with it not being an illusion?
    one: probably not. this was pretty stupid, wasn't it?
    two: no. it's a question a great many people have come up against eventually. each has their own way of resolving it or avoiding it or ignoring it.
    one: have you come up against it?
    two: yes.
    one: how do you resolve it?
    two: i usually ignore it.
    one: does that resolve it?
    two: in a sense it does. it resolves it by not resolving it. i do not believe that it can be or needs to be resolved. therefore i ignore it.
    one: yes. i can see that. i haven't really resolved it, have i?
    two: if you believe you have then you have. yet one could say that you haven't.
    one: do you say that?
    two: i doesn't concern me. i'm ignoring it, remember?
    one: oh yeah. maybe i should ignore it too.
    two: you could. maybe you already are.
    one: am i?
    two: you could be.
    one: yes, i see that. you're right, there isn't a way to resolve it.
    two: not any way i am aware of - which leaves a lot open. except for belief.
    one: belief?
    two: belief is the only way one can resolve it. but one only resolves it for oneself if one believes it is resolved. one may find others who believe it is resolved the same way one believes it is resolved. but that does not necessarily mean it's resolved. it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't resolved either.
    one: i think i'll just ignore it.
    two: that seems the best idea to me. whichever way it it seems to work out and take care of itself. some people believe it is one thing and others believe it is something else while some others believe it is another thing and so on. and each of those have their own reasons and explanations for believing what they believe. of course i was thinking of this woman's pussy all wet and dripping and ready and waiting to be fucked.
    one: do you think the reason i was asking and wondering was because of my need to have it be one way or the other? and she was kinda moaning and rolling her hips.
    two: it's possible. it could have been just because you were curious. to be human is to be curious. and this guy comes along and sticks his huge cock inside her and she cries out, yes, oh yes, and grabs him and pulls him to her.
    one: is it? are all humans curious? and this other guy comes along and sticks his huge cock in her mouth and says, choke on this, bitch.
    two: curious about different things. and also some aren't curious about anything. some are curious about abstract philosophical questions while some are curious about car engines. and she does choke but the guy just rams it down her throat all the more so.
    one: but the idea of this being illusion one thinks that it is an illusion that is covering over a deeper reality. and she pukes just as the guy comes all over her face.
    two: it's not that black and white, i don't think. it's a matter of graduated perception of a whole reality. it's all here. we just don't perceive all of it. it's not that what we see is false, it's just not complete. when do we perceive it all? at 5:15 on a tuesday afternoon? when we are 3? 5? 16? 25? 32? 56? when? perception is continuous. and the guy who's fucking her takes out a knife and slits her throat as he comes inside her.
    one: i can see that. so it doesn't really matter. and the guy with puke all over his balls says, why'd you do that for?
    two: hypothetically. and the guy who slit her throat stabs him in the heart.
    one: so are we in agreement? and then this other woman comes in and hits the guy over the head with a baseball bat cracking his skull open.
    two: were we in disagreement? and then this dog comes in and she lays down on the floor and the dog straddles her and she starts sucking its cock.
    one: maybe it depends on whether we understand how much we agree or not. and this other woman comes in and starts eating the other woman's pussy.
    two: there is that. and then this woman with a cock and a whip comes in and starts whipping the woman eating the other woman's pussy.
    one: there's a lot of things. and the woman cries out with each stoke arching her back and throwing her head back.
    two: there's that too. and the woman sucking off the dog has an orgasm and gets sprayed with dog cum at the same time.
    one: there is everything. and the woman with the cock mounts and fucks the woman she/he was whipping.
    two: so it would seem. and the woman sucking off the dog gets the guy's knife and stabs the dog to death.
    one: we come into existence and a state of perceiving and a certain understanding of what we perceive then we cease to exist and perceive and understand. but not before the dog bites off one of her tits.
    two: so it would seem. and the woman fucking the other woman cums all over her ass.
    one: yet we want existence and perception and understanding to continue. we reach for as much of it as we can while we exist. and the woman being fucked turns around kneeling and opens her mouth and the woman with the cock pisses in her mouth and all over her tits.
    two: so it would seem. and then the police come and shoot all of them.
    one: and it may be illusion. and the police hop back in their cars and drive to the nearest opium den and smoke bowls until they have forgotten everything.
    two: it may be. but the woman who got her tit bitten off by the dog isn't dead and she runs screaming down the street.
    one: but that is all we have. we either accept it or we do not. we either believe it or not. we interpret it and deal with it as given and we understand it, illusion or not. and a ufo flies overhead and beams her aboard.
    two: so what have we come to here? and they strap her to a table and give her a good deep anal probe.
    one: what did we need to come to? and then the ufo gets shot down by a missile from a submarine and splashes into the ocean.
    two: some sort of conclusion? and the submarine comes up and they get out and go into the ufo and find the woman strapped to the table with an anal probe up her ass and she's now dead but they take turns fucking her anyway.
    one: is there any sort of conclusion? but this was all an opium dream by one of the policemen.
    two: isn't each moment a conclusion? and he wakes up and pulls the pants down of one of the other policemen and fucks him up the ass while he is still unconscious.
    one: isn't each moment not a conclusion? until that policeman wakes up too and turns and shoots the other one between the eyes.
    two: therefore we have time. and that policeman pulls up his pants and wakes the other policemen and one policewoman up and they go back to the station.
    one: does time have a conclusion? and they pull into a back alley where there is a mounted patrol horse. the policewoman strokes its cock until it grows and then starts sucking on it barely fitting it into her mouth.
    two: only if it stops. and a great deal of horse cum explodes from her mouth dribbling all over her uniform.
    one: how could it stop? the policemen get excited over this and unzip their pants and begin jerking one another off.
    two: if it reaches a conclusion. but it always reaches a conclusion. it always is a conclusion as it always is a beginning. yet it is neither. and the policewoman goes around in a circle sucking off each of the policemen.
    one: time can be seen as a continual moment. a moment that is always now. and then they take out their batons and beat her to death on the ground with their cocks still hanging out of their pants.
    two: that doesn't help someone who needs to be at work on time. and they all pull their pants down and shit on her dead body.
    one: no. but it helps someone who wishes to gain immortality. and the police chief comes out and says, what's going on here? and then takes off his clothes and rolls around on top of the dead policewoman smearing shit all over himself.
    two: yet we still die. it is only the moment that is immortal. and the policemen piss on him as he's doing this.
    one: all eternity would be a moment. it would end as soon as it began. all the while he is laughing insanely. then suddenly he leaps up and says, ok - enough fun stuff. let's get back to work - eh?
    two: otherwise it would be an eternity of relative unchanging boredom. and so they go back to work arresting people and beating them up in the basement cells.
    one: is the a difference? and at the end of the day they go home to their wives.
    two: probably not. and their wives have just gotten home to make dinner after having an all out lesbian orgy together.
    one: but we would not know what it is or what it would be like. we do not even comprehend our own lives. yet we do not accept that. each of us ponders it anew as others have pondered it before us. we all reach the same point of incomprehension. we cannot even fully comprehend the question. and the policemen and their wives after dinner go into the children's bedrooms and fuck them silly with vibrating dildos boys and girls alike.
    two: yet here we are again - you and i. we turn the same wheels around. we maybe find a new combination of variables that are the same components as they always have been. nothing new is added. then they all go to bed and sleep dreamless throughout the night while their children sob and moan.
    one: one may roll the dice and come up with an infinite series of numbers but one is always rolling the same dice. and the next day dawns and they get up and do it all over again.
    two: and build machines that can roll far many more dice at a far faster rate than we are able to. and they all live happily ever after.
    one: but even knowing that we will not stop. it is our nature. and we may gain a number of benefits from it and lose as many in the end. we are nothing more than neurotic monkeys expressing our neurosis in complex and diverse ways. especially the children who have killed their parents in their sleep.
    two: so it is pointless? and they go off to school happy as larks on a holiday.
    one: isn't avoiding it, if successfully accomplished, arriving at a conclusion? and their happiness infects the rest of their schoolmates and they all dance and sing.
    two: technically perhaps. but how does one determine if that has been successfully accomplished? is arriving at a conclusion entail one being aware of it or does it occur independently of one's awareness of it? and they and their teachers all take off their clothes and declare themselves free from all oppressive regimes.
    one: it could be either way. i don't know. i don't know anything. and the whole world bursts into flames of enlightenment.
    two: ....?
    then there was an explosion of something offstage. then there was nothing. then there was the worst thing imaginable. then there was death. then there was life. then there was the maggot infested flesh. then there was a rose with all its thorns. then there was television. then there was a glass of wine.
    one and two were standing on the stage watching all this happen when a third person came on stage to join them.
    three: so what have you two been up to?
    one: we've been wondering about the illusion or reality of everything and we've been off on tangents from there.
    three: what sort of tangents?
    two: oh, time, experience, awareness and other things in various combinations.
    three: the awareness and experience of the illusion of reality?
    one: well, it sort of started there, i think. i don't remember.
    two: it wasn't important.
    three: then why talk about it?
    two: it was important at the time or seemed to be when we were talking about it.
    three: but it's not anymore?
    two: i would say that it is in its own time which is gone but might come around again. now there are other things that are more important.
    three: such as?
    one: what we are now talking about.
    three: and what is that?
    two: we seem to be talking about the importance of things
    three: and is that important?
    one: it might be.
    two: and it might not be.
    three: how does one tell the difference?
    one: flip a coin.
    three: flip a coin?
    two: that's what we did before.
    three: did that solve the question?
    one: not really.
    two: it sort of made it more complicated.
    three: aren't there some rules we could follow?
    one: do we want to follow rules?
    three: so there are no rules?
    two: if there are no rules then there is no rule to say that there are no rules so there could be rules.
    one: but we don't know what they are.
    three: what would determine what these rules are?
    one: we determine what they are, either by invention or observation.
    two: this sort of fits into what we were talking about before about illusion and reality - how do we know what's what?
    three: wasn't this discussed to death back in the enlightenment or sometime?
    one: it's been discussed to death in all eras including this one. one generation arrives at a conclusion about it and then dies and another generation comes up and faces the same questions. in the long run we don't arrive at any conclusion about anything. everything perpetuates itself.
    three: that sounds rather simplistic.
    two: there's more to it than that. what we've said so far is simplified but to call the whole that it refers to simplistic is to say that an iceberg one is sailing toward doesn't seem that big.
    one: and who's to say that it shouldn't be simplistic? we assume that knowledge must be complex. is it complex? or do we make it complex because we refuse to believe or accept that it might be simple?
    three: things are complex. everything is complex and every part of everything is complex.
    two: complexity is fundamentally simple.
    three: yes, complexity is based and built on simplicity but not contained by simplicity yet we must sometimes describe it in simple terms.
    one: isn't that what i said?
    three: is it?
    one: basically. i said what we were saying about what we were talking about was simplified. we speak in shorthand terms sometimes. we do not hold anything to that simplicity. we, as you said, describe it in simple terms with a certain amount of understanding that it is not really that simple.
    three: i understand. of course for the purposes of communication descriptions must be simplified. but that can go too far and we can lose track of what we are talking about. what are we talking about?
    two: we are talking about how do we figure out what we're talking about.
    one: rubbing our noses down in the funky business of reality and our perception and experience of reality and all that good stuff.
    three: as i said, it's been done.
    two: it's been done but has it been finished? i'm not aware of any definitive answers to anything in this area. there's theories and counter-theories. there's belief and doubt of that belief. at times we figured we had it pretty much mapped out but then someone else comes along and exposes gaping holes in it. that's what we do. it always has to be rediscovered, reexamined. even if it's the same old thing.
    one: besides, we're just a bunch of dumb fucks here. what do we know? we're hardly on the cutting edge of things.
    three: yes, there are those who are more privileged about these things.
    one: let's give them a standing ovation and pin ribbons on their purple gowns. then shoot them. get them out of the way so others can move through.
    three: that seems a little uncalled for. are they not only explorers out discovering the unknown and uncharted? what they discover eventually benefits us all. i'm not saying there aren't abuses of knowledge and it might be that these abuses are the rule rather than the exception. but it all filters down eventually. perhaps i am a little too optimistic - even naive.
    two: perhaps you are. perhaps you aren't. you are right and you are wrong. and it doesn't matter which. and it is also of the utmost importance. there are no answers that we can come up with because we can't even formulate a question that needs to be answered. what are we questioning? anything? what do we not know already? what the fuck are we talking about?
    one: we could talk about sex.
    two: weren't we talking about sex before?
    one: was that sex or just out and out brutality?
    two: is there a difference?
    one: not to some.
    three: sex is a popular topic. there's not much to think about it. one finds what one is aroused by and pursues it.
    two: and others find out what one is aroused by and use that information to manipulate one's behavior.
    three: well, first of all, what do we mean by sex?
    one: something that arouses the genitals?
    three: does it have to be the genitals?
    two: i would say yes.
    one: i would agree. we need to distinguish it from other kinds of arousal like hunger or other desires.
    three: couldn't hunger be sexual?
    one: if there is a corresponding arousal of the genitals, yes.
    two: we need to draw a line somewhere. i would draw it there.
    one: it would still include a great many things, such as you said, hunger.
    three: yes, i can see that.
    two: even starvation can be sexual.
    one: anything can be sexual.
    three: so now that we have defined what we mean by sex what are we going to discuss about it?
    one: what do other people discuss about it?
    two: i don't think they usually talk about it like they're setting up an experiment like we've done.
    three: i'm not the one who brought it up.
    one: i sort of said it as a joke. i didn't have anything specific in mind. it just seems that that is what other people talk about a lot. i said it to bring us back to earth, so to speak. we were getting a little too abstract.
    two: well, we are talking about it, aren't we?
    one: abstractly.
    two: is anyone aroused?
    three: not me.
    one: i am sort of. but i don't know if it's from anything we're talking about or not.
    three: maybe you're aroused by things being abstract.
    one: could be.
    three: sometimes i'm aroused when i'm just comfortable and relaxed. maybe we need to distinguish just how much genital arousal needs to happen before something is sexual.
    two: maybe we should just forget it. we'll be splitting hairs forever.
    three: we seem to do that no matter what we talk about.
    one: so how do other people do it? how do they talk about things without going into some hyper-analysis about it?
    two: it's pretty sad that we can't even talk about sex without doing that.
    three: what causes us to do this?
    one: some sort of arousal?
    three: such as?
    two: neural?
    one: as opposed to genital?
    two: i don't know about it being opposed. is it opposed?
    three: it's usually thought of as such.
    one: can't there be neural sex?
    two: so we're having sex?
    three: intellectual sex?
    one: mind fucking.
    three: it could be that way. sort of yogic. channeling the arousal of prana energy from the genitals upward through the spine to the brain. the orgasmic flowering of the lotus blossom.
    two: so are we still talking about sex?
    one: it would seem that we always were, maybe.
    three: not just talking about sex but performing a sexual act.
    two: talking about sex is a sexual act?
    three: talking about anything is a sexual act.
    one: something's not quite right about that. i don't know.
    two: i don't know about you two but i'm not really feeling it, you know?
    three: well, if we establish that sex can occur in the mind.
    one: how else are we aware of it?
    three: exactly.
    two: i don't think this is what other people talk about when they talk about sex.
    one: fuck them.
    three: exactly.
    two: but what does this have to do with anything else?
    one: everything is sex.
    three: exactly.
    two: then what is sex?
    three: what do you mean?
    two: if everything is sex then what is actual sex - you know, fucking?
    one: it's fucking.
    three: exactly.
    two: so then what is everything else?
    one: we already said, everything is sex.
    two: nevermind.
    one: hey, don't be that way. we're just standing around here making noises with our mouths.
    three: in certain patterns that we recognize as having meaning.
    two: this has become sort of meaningless to me.
    three: what is it to have meaning?
    two: isn't that where we sort of came into all this?
    three: was it?
    two: sure. meaning, experience, awareness - all that sort of stuff which the two of you have now lumped all into as having sex.
    three: well, isn't it?
    two: in an abstract sort of way - metaphorically maybe.
    one: which is the metaphor for the other?
    two: i'd say that sex is the metaphor. everything isn't sex but everything is like having sex. that i can understand.
    three: ok. everything is like having sex.
    two: good. thank you. so now what?
    one: we were talking about meaning, right?
    three: meaning? how can we not know what meaning is?
    two: meaning is sort of like when one thing connects to another.
    one: like having sex.
    two: hey - drop it about sex - ok?
    one: just kidding.
    three: if we don't know what meaning is then how are we even talking to each other? we have to know what each other means when they say something.
    one: do we really know what each other means?
    three: well, close enough to be able to communicate. the more we communicate the more we can determine what the other means. though we may not know absolutely.
    two: it depends on whether we're talking about real things or abstract things.
    one: like talking about a dog or talking about - well, sex?
    two: right.
    three: sex seems to be something pretty real to me.
    two: but not the abstract way we ended up talking about it.
    three: i suppose so.
    one: do we know what sex means?
    three: do we need to know what sex means?
    two: we need to know what the things we're talking about mean if we're going to talk about them.
    one: do we need to agree about what they mean?
    two: it would help.
    three: but until we can come to agreement we need to talk about them without maybe necessarily agreeing on what they mean first.
    two: that could be.
    one: what does that mean?
    two: what does what mean?
    one: what you two just said.
    three: it means that there doesn't have to be agreed upon meaning to have meaning.
    one: well, there's general common meaning, right?
    two: how so?
    one: well, language carries a certain fundamental meaning - assuming we're all speaking the same language.
    three: i think we can assume that.
    one: but then we have our personal meanings for the words we use. even something like dog. we each probably picture a different dog. but we generally know what the word dog means.
    two: i think between the three of us we could get pretty abstract about even that.
    one: yes, probably true.
    three: are we having sex now?
    two: what?
    three: is this the thing that's like having sex?
    one: it could be.
    three: hmm - conversation as sex. interesting.
    one: maybe i shouldn't have brought that up.
    two: i would agree. i wish you hadn't.
    three: i like sex.
    two: so do i. but this is not having sex.
    three: i thought we agreed that it was like having sex, not actually having sex.
    two: i guess. but i wish we could talk about something else.
    three: what's better than talking about sex?
    one: nothing.
    two: but we aren't really talking about sex.
    three: we're not?
    two: no. talking about sex - how most people talk about sex is talking about how they got laid last night or didn't get laid or something like that.
    three: i got laid last night.
    one: how was it?
    three: a lot better than this.
    two: that's exactly what i mean. this isn't sex. it's not like having sex. it has nothing to do with sex. unless we're all going to fuck each other.
    three: i'm not planning to.
    one: you two aren't really my type - sorry.
    two: so let's talk about something else.
    three: like what?
    two: what were we talking about before?
    one: i forget.
    three: me too.
    two: well - i guess i do too.
    one: wasn't it something about reality and illusion?
    two: yeah, it was.
    three: how boring.
    two: then what do you want to talk about? and don't say sex.
    three: you read my mind.
    two: we need to talk about something.
    three: why?
    two: because we're in a play. we just can't stand here and say nothing.
    but that is exactly what they did for about a hour or so.

    and back in the cafe he lights another cigarette.

    two: ok.
    one: ok what?
    two: ok - suppose that we had sex with each other instead of just standing around not talking to each other. now what would we talk about?
    three: i usually go to sleep after sex.
    one: me too.
    two: ok - after you woke up again. what would you talk about?
    three: i would depend on who i was with.
    two: you're with us.
    three: i don't really know who either of you are.
    two: we could talk about that.
    one: what about that?
    two: us not knowing who each other are.
    three: i don't think i want to know.
    two: why not?
    three: i'm just not that interested.
    one: me neither.
    two: well, forget that idea.
    and they stood around not talking for about another hour or so.

    and in the cafe he couldn't think of anything for them to talk about. what is there besides sex. isn't sex everything? the prime motive for everything? is that their motive for talking to each other? but what if they're not attracted to one another as it seems that they are not? is that his motivation for writing this? is that why he's writing - hoping maybe someone will notice and be impressed and sit down and talk with him about it. and then take him home and fuck him?
    perhaps.
    is everything else just bullshit?

    two: so why are we in this play?
    three: i don't really know. i just happened to be in it.
    two: but you could leave.
    three: i don't think so.
    one: maybe we're hoping someone will notice us and want to fuck us.
    three: there you go.
    two: is that it?
    one: seems like a pretty good reason to me.
    two: and so what is this supposed person supposed to notice that will make them want to fuck you?
    one: how handsome and clever i am.
    two: clever doing what?
    one: being clever.
    three: saying clever things. being given clever things to say.
    two: so the purpose of this play is to have sex?
    one: i'd say so, yes.
    three: sure.
    two: well then, we better start being clever.
    three: what does someone clever do?
    one: they have clever answers to clever questions.
    three: what questions?
    one: oh - like the meaning of life and that sort of thing.
    two: weren't we talking about that?
    one: right, we were.
    three: you want to talk about the meaning of life?
    two: or something like that.
    one: the meaning of life is to get laid.
    two: not everybody wants to get laid. they do other things.
    one: they do other things so someone will notice them and want to fuck them.
    two: you think that's it?
    one: is there anything else?
    two: what about those who don't want sex?
    one: everyone wants sex. it's like what we were saying before, what's sex? not having sex can be having sex.
    two: huh?
    one: sure. for some people not having sex is as pleasurable or obviously more pleasurable than having sex is.
    two: i suppose.
    three: i can see that. we told you , sex is everything. everything is sex. even not having sex.
    two: i suppose you two think you're being clever with this.
    one: we hope so. i want to get laid. don't you?
    two: i already am.
    one: what do you mean?
    two: this is like having sex to me.
    one it is?
    two: sure, why not?
    one: i suppose it could be. i don't know if i like that idea though.
    two: why? what do you mean by having sex?
    one: well, fucking somebody.
    three: i think we're being fucked right now.
    one: more like being raped.
    two: aren't you doing this willingly?
    one: not if it means having sex with you.
    two: but you agreed that everything is sex.
    one: well, not so literally.
    three: i think a change of subject is in order.
    two: like what?
    one: anything except having sex with you.
    two: it's about time.
    one: it's about time what?
    two: about time i got you off the subject of sex.
    one: well, i'm still thinking about sex - just not with you. that creeps me out. you're not coming in your pants or anything like that over this, are you?
    two: nope. it's all in my head.
    three: i think i see what you mean.
    two: do you ?
    three: well, a good conversation can be like having sex. a good anything can be like having sex.
    two: that's sort of what i mean.
    three: so let's have a good conversation.
    two: i thought we were.
    three: well, a good conversation is usually about trying to come up with answers to questions people wonder about.
    two: how come?
    three: we're curious about things we don't understand.
    two: so come up with a question we can try to answer.
    one: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
    three: the egg.
    one how so?
    three: cells came before organisms. an egg is a cell. a chicken is an organism.
    one: i suppose so.
    three: is searching for a question to answer, or discuss, sort of like looking for someone to have sex with?
    one: if one is into s&m.
    three: yes, it could be that way, couldn't it?
    two: frustration and pain. the unanswerable questions of life.
    three: the same ones each new generations have to answer for themselves.
    one: i thought you said they'd been discussed to death.
    three: they have been. they always will be. people think about them. they write a book about it. then they die. then someone else comes along who feels that they were full of shit and they write something else.
    one: then they die.
    three: right.
    one: but the important thing is - did they get laid?
    two: maybe that was like getting laid to them.
    three: it is the creative act.
    one: how exciting.
    three: some people think so.
    two: it's as exciting as anything else.
    one: that doesn't say much for anything else then.
    three: were you expecting something else? revelation perhaps?
    one: revelation is boring after awhile.
    two: so is having sex.
    three: how does boredom fit into this?
    one: boredom leads to madness.
    two: the mad are never bored.
    one: how would you know?
    two: i have my sources.
    three: it could be the prime motivator.
    two: even more so than sex?
    three: it could be the motivation behind creation itself.
    one: that's pretty depressing.
    three: should we avoid the truth because it is depressing?
    two: boredom is truth?
    three: as a primal motivation for all activity, even all existence, i would say that it's possible.
    two: that is depressing.
    three: but what comes out of it isn't.
    two: so, are we talking about god here?
    one: oh no, we're in trouble now.
    three: some sort of consciousness, perhaps. we don't have to talk about god.
    one: i think that's a good idea.
    two: unless we've been talking about god all along.
    one: i thought we were talking about sex all along.
    two: it could be the same thing.
    three: the big orgasm of creation?
    two: something like that.
    one: i can dig that, i suppose.
    three: that's what we meant before when we said everything is sex. everything we do is part of the primal creative act.
    two: well, if you put it that way i can see it.
    three: i thought that's how we were putting it.
    one: are we still talking about god?
    two: why shouldn't we? is talking about god such a terrible thing? i don't think we mean the traditional god the father of judgment and damnation and all that.
    three: i don't.
    two: what else does god mean? what do we mean by that word?
    one: can't we use a different word? make up a new one?
    two: how about gazorbnik?
    one: sure, why not?
    three: maybe that's how they made up the word god to begin with.
    two: could be.
    one: so god - or gazorbnik - was bored?
    two: they say that the reason there is something instead of nothing is because nothing is unstable. but what if it's because nothing was bored?
    three: that implies consciousness.
    two: i suppose it does.
    one: and returning to gazorbnik returns us to boredom?
    three: the mystics would have it that way - return to non-thought. they say it sets us free.
    one: free to be bored.
    two: the return to boredom without being bored.
    three: without instability.
    one: poof! nothing regains control and domain over everything again. how exciting.
    three: there may be no way out.
    two: nothing. entropy. the ripples on the pond settle out and cease and never again is the surface of the pond disturbed.
    three: that is when we see our true reflection without the distortion of images.
    one: i think i'll puke now.
    two: our discussion has taken a rather dark turn.
    three: should we avoid that?
    two: humans usually avoid feeling hopeless.
    one: bullshit. they thrive on it. humans without feeling hopeless wouldn't be humans.
    two: "they" - who's they? aren't we they?
    one: not if we don't want to be.
    three: is it up to us?
    two: no. we're just nameless characters in a play written by a madman. we have no choice in anything. we speak the lines that are written for us.
    one: it doesn't feel that way to me.
    three: maybe we're inside his head and speaking the lines that he then writes down.
    two: it could be that way, i suppose.
    one: i like it better that way. though i'm not sure i like just being someone inside the head of a madman.
    three: do we have any choice?
    two: no more than he has, i suppose.
    one: well, fuck him anyway.
    three: watch it. he could decide to get rid of you.
    one: let's see him try.
    three: don't press your luck.
    two: i don't think he cares what we say. but if all of this is true then it kinda changes things.
    three: in what way?
    two: well, we are 3 independent people expressing our own ideas.  we're his idea of 3 independent people expressing their ideas. actually all the ideas are his own.
    one: well that let's us off the hook for being human.
    three: what are we then?
    two: maybe we're demons possessing him.
    one: demons? you've got to be kidding me. i'm not a demon.
    two: what are you then?
    three: you're not a real person anyway. none of us are. we're all fictional.
    one: nuts to you.
    two: and is he real?
    three: he exists in the real world. we exist in his imagination.
    two: is there a difference?
    three: i would think there would be.
    two: well, of the two i'd rather be us.
    three: maybe he does too. why else would he make us up?
    two: so what does that make us?
    three: i'm not sure. different aspects of his own personality?
    one: so we're just as real as he is.
    three: how do you mean?
    one: well, think about it. what is he? a conscious entity inside a physical body. what are we? conscious entities inside a physical body. at least i am.
    three: me too.
    two: me three.
    one: just as long as i'm not a demon.
    two: i didn't say you were one. i said you could be. we all could be.
    one: so? what do you think?
    three: maybe you're right. we're just not invented characters. we exist in our own right.
    two: i don't know if i'll go that far.
    one: why not?
    two: it just doesn't seem right somehow.
    one: it seems right to me. but maybe that's just me. maybe you are just an invented character. but i'm not. i think therefore i am and all that business.
    three: i can say that too.
    two: well - i suppose me too.
    one: there we go then. we're just as real as he is.
    two: i think we're just split parts of his personality not persons in and of ourselves.
    one: well, you can say that. i don't agree.
    three: does that make us fictional?
    one: isn't he just as fictional? i mean, what is a real person but a fictional construction of one's social and cultural environment?
    two: you could be right.
    three: we could be refractions of his own personality. maybe he sets up aspects of himself in a situation where they - we - hold a discussion so he's better able to clarify what he's thinking about.
    one: or he's just plain lonely and nobody else will talk with him.
    three: or no one talks with him about these sorts of things.
    one: like what?
    two: sex and god.
    three: and meaning and experience and awareness and all that.
    one: ok. whatever. i'm getting tired of this. i don't care who or what we are or what we're talking about anymore.
    two: i'm feeling about the same.
    three: so now what do we do?
    three: i wonder if he's tried of this.
    two: then why is he still writing it?
    one: i told you. he's just some lonely guy and no one else will talk to him. he only has us.
    two: i think he has more of a choice than that. he does this because he wants to . if he wanted to do something else he would do it.
    three: just like us. what else would we rather be doing?
    two: do we have a choice?
    three: as much as he does.
    two: what would you rather be doing?
    three: fishing on a river.
    two: i'd just like to be home reading a book.
    one: so why aren't you doing those things?
    two: who says we don't?
    three: i do other things when i'm not here, don't you?
    one: like what?
    two: anything.
    one: no.
    two: no? this is all you do?
    one: maybe. maybe not. why should i tell you?
    two: you don't have to tell me what you do. but i would like to think you do something other than this.
    one: i kill people, ok? i hunt them down and stab them to death and then roll around in their blood. there - satisfied?
    two: it's fine by me as long as i'm not one of them.
    one: no. these are people i make up on my own. they're not really real.
    two: oh.
    three: i don't think the river i fish in is really real either. i just make it up.
    two: yeah - i think i just make up that i have a home to go to and read.
    one: well, you guys can stick around here and keep yakking. i'm outta here. (exit stage right)

    a pause while he lights another cigarette.

    two: so, it's just us.
    three: seems that way.
    two: so now what do we do?
    three: whatever we want.
    two: do you want to split too?
    three: yeah, sort of. this is getting old.
    two: yeah, let's go. (both exit stage left until they found that there was no exit. then they exit stage right until they find there's no exit there either. they come back center stage.)
    three: it would seem that we're stuck here.
    two: the play must not be over.
    three: rats. i wanted to go fishing.
    two: i wanted to go home and read.
    three: so i wonder what he expects us to say now.
    two: why did he let the other one leave?
    three: beats me. do you really think he exerts that much control?
    two: he must if he blocked the exits.
    three: does he determine everything or just some things?
    two: what do you mean?
    three: i mean how much freedom do we have over our actions and what we might say?
    two: well i feel that i control what i do and say.
    three: except being able to get off this stage with all these geeks a-gawking at us.
    two: well, yes, besides that.
    three: so how much does he control us?
    two: how can we know? does it matter?
    three: it matters to me.
    two: well, it always comes back to that - does it matter or not.
    three: i don't like being controlled.
    two: we're all controlled to some extent. even he is controlled.
    three: how do you know that?
    two: i don't know. i just feel that it's true. something.
    three: and he controls us?
    two: maybe not so much. he sets up a situation - us being on stage in a play - but then i think he lets us go our own way with it. this may be as much new to him as it is to us.
    three: no direction known.
    two: something like that.
    three: i don't like it.
    two: what's not to like? at least we exist.
    three: exist as parts of himself.
    two: it's something. it's all what one gets out of it for oneself. some things may be able to be transmitted but what the other receives it as, translates it as, is up to them. all we can know is ourselves whatever that may or may not be and what makes sense to ourselves. even most of that we can't always be sure of. each exists as we each exist. we can try to put it into some form of universal uniformity but that never seems to work. it becomes generalized to the point of being meaningless especially as it is applied to greater numbers of people. we assume everyone wants the same thing and for the same reasons and will go about getting it the same way. then we have to go around patching up the holes and end up with a tangled mess of contradictions. then it breaks down or is torn down and replaced with another form of universal uniformity. and thus we have human history.
    three: aren't you doing a bit of universal uniforming yourself?
    two: am i not human?
    three: maybe. at least an expression of someone who is human.
    two: you mean him?
    three: yeah - the guy writing this.
    two: oh yeah, him. i still don't like the idea that that is all we are - just aspects of him.
    three: well, look at it the other way around. who is he but a combination of ourselves? who is to say which of us, including himself, is the true personality or more of the true personality than the others? who creates or is created by who? we seem to be within the same body as expressions of the same mind - or mindspace, if you will. the mansion with many rooms. the mind tells the body to write, but who tells the body what to write? when each of us speaks we are telling the body what to write down. aren't we then controlling the mind? are we each in turn the one writing? or is there a central true personality who is listening and transcribing our words? he is the identity of the body. he was the one given the name of the body. with that name came expectations to be only one person or personality. all expressions from this body are assumed to be expressions of that one person or personality. a singular person or personality. but who is that actually?
    two: legion?
    three: well, maybe not that many. but something like that. he is merely the executive, so to speak, who carries out the orders of the rest of us. we present ideas but he is the one who carries them out.
    two: i thought you said we each had control.
    three: when it comes to the writing, yes. we each may speak. he writes it down. this may help him clarify what he is thinking. otherwise we're just a jumble of voices in his head.
    two: like this is real clear.
    three: it's clear about what he is thinking. what he is thinking may not be clear. if that makes any sense.
    two: it does and it doesn't. so he invents us to help him straighten out his own head?
    three: or we invented him and are using him as a collective expression of ourselves.
    two: well it's a bunch of dada either way.
    three: i suppose it is.
    two: i mean, what comes out of it?
    three: like a conclusion?
    two: we've been through that before and never came up with anything. no, not a conclusion to anything. what does it produce whether what it produces is conclusive or not?
    three: nothing it can think of. maybe we never know. we produce what we produce. do those who create always know what they create?
    two: well, they at least know that they are creating.
    three: they may not always. they may oblivious to the fact that they are creating as well as to what they are creating. everyone creates, i think. and what one creates fits into what everyone is creating. it shapes what is generally created in some way - positively or negatively. yet in and of itself may not stand out as being anything creative. we could be like neurons that fire or don't fire. that the firing either inhibits or activates other neurons. it's all part of the process of what is being created.
    two: so it all doesn't matter what we do.
    three: it does. we just don't always know what matters or how or why it matters. we don't know what critical piece we may play in the whole. it's just all an ongoing process of creating.
    two: so it does matter.
    three: isn't that what i said?
    two: well, sort of, i think.
    three: it all goes into being something creative. even nonaction or negative action plays a part. things are created while other things are not. we both inhibit and activate, remember? for everything that is created there is its opposite that wasn't created. that allowed its creation. out of what is created and what is not created comes what is created.
    two: you're starting to lose me. is this some sort of dualism trip?
    three: no. well, sort of in a way. not in the sense that dualism explains everything which it doesn't. opposites are the minimal units. there are other possibilities. otherwise everything would be only black and white. there would be no shades of gray. for every up there is a least a down. but up and down are relative terms. what is up to one thing may be down to another. you see?
    two: i suppose.
    three: all of this is just a playground. we're supposed to be enjoying ourselves creating things in the ongoing process of creation. but there's always someone to spoil our fun.
    two: oh well.
    three: yes. they don't create for themselves, they just inhibit others creativity.
    two: if they hate creativity so much why don't they just leave?
    three: i don't know.
    two: but you said inhibition is part of the process.
    three: being inhibited sometimes actives some people's creativity, yes.
    two: that's good then.
    three: yes. it's the whole of creation that is what's important. as long as that continues we're ok.
    two: but there seem to be people who don't want any part of it.
    three: yes. they seem to think they can rise above it to some other reality zone or something like that. i don't understand that. i mean, i can see wanting to take a break. it all gets quite confusing and can be quite painful. but to never want to come back, i don't know. but i suppose i'm just some unenlightened slob - cosmic white trash or something. it's a club i don't want to be in anyway. not that they'd let me in
    two: me either.
    three: how horrible to be left out of such an ultimate prestigious and exclusive club like that.
    two: well, i have my own own place where i am which is where i am now. it's neither exclusive nor non-exclusive. others are either part of it or not. it's their own decision. they come and go as they will and as it happens. if they're here, then they're here. if they're not then they're not.
    three: and suppose no one comes.
    two: then i am alone.
    three: suppose they come and kick you out?
    two: they can't do that. where i am is where i am. that's the only definition. it is not any particular place or anther. it is only the place where i am. if i am in a particular place and others force me to leave then i go somewhere else and that is then where i am. and where they are not.
    three: and if they follow you and continue to force you out?
    two: why would they? it's not me they are after. they don't want me. they want a particular place and for that place to be exclusively for themselves. they believe it is a better place than other places and it makes them better being there. and one of the things that make it better is not having people like me there. so why would they follow me?
    three: to expand and exert the domination and control over a greater area.
    two: well - yes. they do that, don't they? then i just keep moving. i'm still where i am no matter where i go. they seem to be attempting to push people like me out of the world - their world - and build up defenses to insure that we don't come back. they control the world. now they seek control over the gene pool to prevent us from being born to begin with. but even when i cease to exist i will be where i am.
    three: it seems that is what they want.
    two: they can have it. and what will they have then? what is it they exclude themselves from? they build walls around themselves. are those walls of a fortress or a prison? does it matter either way?
    three: so here we are.
    two: so where does that leave us?
    three: here and now.
    two: but i'm here and you're there.
    three: i can say the same thing.
    two: we exclude each other from where we are.
    three: well, one could say that. but it's not like the others. i mean, we cannot occupy the same physical space but we're ok with being in proximity to each other. the others don't even want that.
    two: being here and now is only relative to the self not to the other.
    three: i think i understand. one is always here and now. it's the location of where that here and now is that changes. is that it?
    two: sort of. we're both just babbling.
    three: it happens.
    two: so, again, where does that leave us?
    three: together in isolation, which isn't to say we are isolated together.
    two: in a paradox built for two?
    three: something like that.
    two: so it begins and ends without beginning or ending and turns itself inside out and cartwheels and explodes.
    three: it will do that.
    two: whatever it is.
    three: it is the thing itself.
    two: have you ever thought of thing as a verb?
    three: a verb?
    two: thing as the-ing. the inging of the.
    three: no, i suppose i haven't.
    two: well it's nothing. it's just something i thought of.
    three: did you think of it while it was exploding?
    two: i think i thought of it either just before or just after.
    three: and did you think of death?
    two: there is always death.
    three: there is death in the living.
    two: the living eating death and then exploding.
    three: is that the the-ing?
    two: i believe that is part of it, yes.
    three: i want to say that it is not.
    two: i want you to say it is not and then explode.
    three: i want you to explode and then think of death while you are cartwheeling.
    two: i want you to hear the scream of the butterfly.
    three: i want you to hear the whisper of the apocalypse.
    two: i want you to want me.
    three: i want to give you a fanged kiss.
    two: i want to turn you into a cloud and watch you rain.
    three: i want you to love me with all your raging hatred.
    two: i want to let you die.
    three: i want you to force me to live at gun point.
    two: i want you to want me to go.
    three: i want you to want me to come.
    two: is that come as in come along or cum as in ejaculate?
    three: whichever you want.
    two: what i want is to pose the impossible.
    three: what i want is to pose the question.
    two: posing the question is impossible.
    three: as much as posing the impossible is questionable?
    two: i want to answer that by stepping into the burning sun.
    three: i want to be your shadow.
    two: i want to be your shadow of my shadow.
    three: i want to feel you relax.
    two: i want you to understand madness.
    three: i want you to go mad.
    two: i want you to be a cow.
    three: are we talking about sex?
    two: it might be more interesting if we were.
    three: shall we continue?
    two: do we detest each other yet?
    three: we could if we wanted to.
    two: we could if we didn't want to.
    three: we could do anything.
    two: we could describe it as anything.
    three: one could imagine it as anything.
    two: it is what it is imagined to be.
    three: is it logical?
    two: yes.
    three: is it exploding?
    two: only on tuesdays.
    three: is it licking itself?
    two: it is licking a gun.
    three: is the gun exploding?
    two: the gun is reaching for a state of enlightenment.
    three: is the state of enlightenment reaching for the gun?
    two: the state of enlightenment is the gun.
    three: is it hot?
    two: it is liquid with excitement.
    three: is it the other way around?
    two: it is inside itself.
    three: is itself beside itself?
    two: beside itself is it.
    three: is there yawning?
    two: there is gaping and spreading open bent over gazing at itself with wonder and amusement.
    three: is the amusement wonderful?
    two: the wonder is amused.
    three: can you ask me a question?
    two: what question should i ask?
    three: the question i do not want you to ask me.
    two: what question is that?
    three: i cannot tell you.
    two: am i asking it now?
    three: yes.
    two: that was the question you didn't want me to ask?
    three: no.
    two: why do you make things so difficult?
    three: to make things easy.
    two: easy for who?
    three: maybe you shouldn't ask that question.
    two: why not?
    three: something may explode in your face.
    two: will i like it?
    three: it will depend on how much you like your face.
    two: i like my face.
    three: then stop it.
    two: can't it stop itself?
    three: do you need to ask that question?
    two: how am i to learn?
    three: what is there to learn?
    two: how to make it stop.
    three: imagine it stopping.
    two: i have to know what it is.
    three: it is what is imagined.
    two: we've been through this way before.
    three: but maybe not from this direction.
    two: and maybe things seem familiar.
    three: it could be said that nothing is familiar.
    two: or that everything is familiar.
    three: it could be said we are finished.
    two: it could be said we have not begun.
    three: that sounds familiar.
    two: where it is finished or not finished or where it begins or not is always familiar.
    three: except when it is not.
    two: except where it is not.
    three: but then the donkey we were going to bring in for the grand finale could be dead.
    two: imagine it still alive.
    three: imagine it walking up to a young school boy.
    two: imagine what happens next.
    three: remember that what is imagined may not be happening.
    two: imagine what you and i might be doing.
    three: we could be unlocking doors.
    two: we could be howling with one voice.
    three: we could be twitching and shaking.
    two: we could be filled with burning delight.
    three: we could be hanging upside down.
    two: we could be leaving it to the imagination.
    three: we could be frightened.
    two: we could be hiding out in the open.
    three: we could be brave.
    two: we could be stupid.
    three: we could go on forever.
    two: we could hit a wall.
    three: we could talk about politics instead of sex.
    two: we could talk about religion while what we are really talking about is sex.
    three: my cup runneth over.
    two: i cast my pearls before swine.
    three: i seek the promised land.
    two: i part the sea.
    three: i spare the rod.
    two: i am the spoiled child.
    three: i render unto caesar.
    two: i open the seven vials.
    three: i anoint myself.
    two: i fear no evil.
    three: i ask and i receive.
    two: i feel i should explain this but i also feel that i cannot. this isn't what i expected. but one allows certain things to be open and sometimes forces are unleashed that have their own way. i do not always know what i am saying. i do not always want to know what i am saying. i do not always know who i am who doesn't know what i am saying. sometimes all i want to do is stay home and watch television. sometimes all i want to do is not think about sex all the time. sometimes i want to start a religion that conquers the world and makes everyone explode. sometimes i want to be conquered and implode. sometimes i want enough power to become absolutely corrupt. sometimes i want to crawl through shit and broken glass and ask a maggot for forgiveness. sometimes i am taken away by a rapture of ecstasy and radiate through the celestial spheres. sometimes i think earth is not a sphere but a waveform. sometimes it makes so much sense that i cannot make sense of it.
    three: is this what troubles you?
    two: sometimes i am troubled by it and sometimes i am not. sometimes it troubles me the most when it troubles me the least. isn't this what troubles everyone?
    three: i would imagine that it is. but it would seem that few are aware of it like you are. yet many manifest it all the same. i think this is what is referred to as the human condition. it is our struggle with ourselves and each other. it is a struggle that has no beginning or an end or purpose or meaning. it's all tangled together going almost any direction at once.
    two: sometimes it is a struggle. sometimes it's not. sometimes it has a reason. sometimes it doesn't. sometimes it goes this way. sometimes it goes another way. yet it remains as it is because this is what it is even when it is not. the understanding of mystery and the mystery of understanding inside out to and from each other that causes us to speak in contradictions. i want and do not want. i allow fate to decide what i wish to control. i wish to control what fate decides. it falls into my hands. i either grab onto it or let it go. it overwhelms me or i overwhelm it. this is what it is. what else should it be?
    three: we have our dreams of other things, of other situations, of other ways the world should be. would we accept anything other than what it is if we were to attain it? what would decide whether we would or wouldn't? would it be because it really isn't what we want or would it be because we are conditioned to things as they are and anything different would seem wrong even if it were something better?
    two: why do we fear the machine? why do we worship it as if it were a god above us? is the machine itself good or evil or is only or perception of it good or evil?
    three: the machine?
    two: the beast. the master we are creating to rule us. it has always ruled us. the idea of it has ruled us. we have always striven for the ideal - the ideal of perfection. it does not exist, so if it is to exist we must create it. it is the machine of our creation. our creation - the creation of our creating - is the machine.
    three: i don't think we're supposed to talk about this.
    two: why not?
    three: not everyone knows about the machine or is supposed to know about the machine.
    two: but everyone is asleep.
    three: they might dream of the machine.
    two: the machine is already a dream.
    three: is the machine god?
    two: is god the machine? do we manipulate it or does it manipulate us? do we control our creative process or are we controlled by it? has our consciousness given us god or has god given us consciousness?
    three: it would seem that either way the two go together. some have tried to separate them but have not been entirely successful.
    two: the machine is the link. the machine is the vital component that sustains both. what is the purpose of our consciousness but to perceive god? what is the purpose of god but to be perceived?
    three: what absurdity that our consciousness would destroy god or that god would destroy our consciousness. each would be suicide.
    two: well, maybe not.
    three: no, probably not.
    two: how did god get back into this?
    three: god is a slippery weasel.
    two: god is overrated. god is an arrogant elitist megalomaniac. it's self-centered. it's all god this and god that and god the other thing. god god god. everything is god. we are dog shit compared with god. even being born we are in error. god is the only thing that has any value or worth. our hell and torment is our being separate from god. well, that can work both ways. as much as we are separated from god, god is separated from us - our consciousness. and what does it do to reconnect with us and our consciousness? does it pray to us? does it meditate and chant our name over and over? does it kneel before our image and offer us sacrifices? i doubt it.
    three: so do i.
    two: so we have the machine. we are the machine. the machine worships and serves us. there is no separation between us and the machine. there is no promised heaven or threatened hell. we are where we are here and now. where the fuck is god? it is separated from us. we are in reality. it's off in some dream world of itself. this is what it is. we are what it is. the machine is what it is. this is what's happening. if there is a god and if this god is in fact still alive then why doesn't it come and join us in our eternal joy and amusement with ourselves? why does it want us to feel ashamed? are we doing anything we should be ashamed of?
    three: well - yeah. lots of things.
    two: and are we ashamed?
    three: some of us are.
    two: well, fuck them. i am not ashamed though i have done many shameful things. let them rot.
    three: so, the hell with god, huh?
    two: the hell with god, yes.
    three: and the machine?
    two: the machine is us and what we are and what we do. the machine is not some external thing held out as a reward for our actions. our actions are the machine. we need no reward.
    three: some would say that that is god.
    two: then let it be god.
    three: so does this relate to anything? is this any closer to what we've been talking about?
    two: do we go down that road again?
    three: well...
    two: do we discuss again whether we know what we're talking about or not? we are talking, isn't that enough? who cares if it means anything or what comes out of it? that is the machine.
    three: i guess that answers that then. but is the machine only all of us together? how does the individual fit into this?
    two: one is incorporated into the machine and the machine is incorporated into oneself. whatever one does is the machine, even if one does not participate in the activities of others. even if one hates the others with a flaming passion and seeks to destroy them. this is also the machine. there is nothing we think, say or do that is not the machine either collectively or independently.
    three: so how do we decide what to do?
    two: whatever causes pleasure or pain. but what is that? is it universal? one person's pain may be another person's pleasure. how do we deal with that? i don't know. the machine doesn't know. we just keep doing what we keep on doing.
    three: but still, how do we decide? what reason do we use?
    two: the reason of the machine. the reason of ourselves as the machine. we do this all the time anyway. there is nothing different. how do we decide? this isn't a matter of correct or incorrect. the machine is not a new thing. it is what is and always has been. one just comes to the realization of it. that is what is new about the machine. in that way the machine is new in each and every moment. one is always coming to the realization of the machine whether one knows it or not.
    three: so we really don't know anything about the machine?
    two: not even the machine knows about the machine.
    three: is the machine conscious?
    two: are we?
    three: it would seem that we are though it could be argued that we are not.
    two: the same with the machine.
    three: oh.
    two: but i am babbling again. what i say doesn't make any sense nor does it need to. the machine doesn't make any sense.
    three: i didn't think so.
    two: so what does that all mean? am i wrong? do i lose? should i be made to submit? should i be censored? should i be exiled? should i be put to death?
    three: should i say yes to any of these questions?
    two: one should say yes to everything.
    three: everything?
    two: of course that involves saying no to everything too as well.
    three: i see.
    two: do you?
    three: not really. i'm just agreeing with everything you say.
    two: are you my disciple?
    three: not that i'm aware of.
    two: good. then i won't have to kill you.
    three: i'm just trying to avoid conflict.
    two: conflict is the mainspring of the machine.
    three: it is?
    two: and what better conflict than the conflict between good and evil?
    three: that explains that then.
    two: explains what?
    three: good and evil.
    two: there's no such thing as good and evil.
    three: but you just said...
    two: nevermind what i just said. i told you, i am babbling. i am babbling in the name of the machine.
    three: oh.
    two: the machine needs to be destroyed.
    three: it does?
    two: that too is conflict. that too feeds the machine.
    three: us destroying it?
    two: good luck. the machine cannot be destroyed except if we stop trying to destroy it.
    three: that's the only way?
    two: of course not. there is no way to destroy the machine. the machine can only destroy itself which it is trying to do.
    three: why is that?
    two: because.
    three: because why?
    two: just because.
    three: you're right, you aren't making any sense.
    two: yes i am.
    three: not to me you're not.
    two: who needs you?
    three: well, if it weren't for me you'd be here talking to yourself.
    two: been there. done that.
    three: yeah, me too.
    two: yeah, well try doing it again. (exits stage right)

    another pause while he lights another cigarette.

    z: well, fuck me. that asshole. well - so people, if there is anyone out there, if anyone is still awake and paying attention - what nonsense have we been going on about here? what was it? what is it? what will it be? it is nothing. just words written down in a notebook by some guy who no one pays attention to. nor should they. he sits in a cafe usually by himself but once in awhile people come and sit at his table. he goes home, watches a little tv, plays with his computer creating graphics and sounds for his own amusement. he sleeps, showers, feeds his cat and cleans her litterbox and does laundry once in awhile. he talks to imaginary people. one of these people may be me. or i may be him. who knows? maybe i am him speaking to you. maybe not. everyone is pretty much imaginary. we make ourselves up as we go along. it seems that we are all also the machine. but i don't know too much about that though i might be the machine. one can never tell. it's all in his head anyway. this whole theater is in his head - burning. he is not worth anyone's time except for those few who do spend time with him for some reason or another. he doesn't know. but, anyway - there's not much more to say, so i'll be going too. (exits stage left)

    down in bluesville when everybody's just hanging - or hanging on. who has a life in bluesville? who wants a life in bluesville? it's too much trouble. it's easier just to hang. hang on, baby, hang on.
    and someone says, my baby's hanging on. look at her just hanging there. my baby hasn't moved in days or months, man. she's just hanging. she's the hanging queen here in bluesville. and look at me, i'm hanging too. i'm hanging with my baby. she's the reason i'm hanging. or maybe i'm the reason she's hanging. who can remember? maybe we're each waiting for the other to do something but we forgot who it was of us it was supposed to be. so we're just hanging here in bluesville.
    there's been those who have gotten out - out of bluesville. there's those who drop back by in their i got out of here clothes on and hair-dos and friends from someplace else that isn't bluesville. and they say, man, you're still here? that's cool, they say with a tone that says they don't think it is. or it's cool that someone is still here just like old times but they're glad it's not them. it's so yesterday to them. and there's those who never come back at all. bluesville was a wrong turn. they never look back at bluesville.
    but both of these are in their own bluesville. it shows on those who are the ones who drop by. they talk about their new lives and what they're all doing now. but it sounds like bluesville to him. they've forgotten about how people sound when they're talking and fooling themselves. they've forgotten because that's how they've talking now. breezing in and breezing out. that's all they are now, just a breeze once in awhile that blows through bluesville.
    and those who never come back. where are they? they've just picked themselves up and moved someplace else. but he knows that someplace else is just bluesville in disguise. they don't come back because they know. and they know we'd know as soon as we saw them - that they never left bluesville at all.
    bluesville is the most exclusive place on earth because no one wants to be here and those who are here want to get out in a terrible way because they know they probably never will. and those who arrive in bluesville hang their heads and moan, how did i end up here?
    but to us veterans, man, we're in our own little hog heaven. nobody bugs us at all. maybe because we look like we smell bad - and maybe we do smell bad. it depends on when we might have taken a bath that's a rather random schedule here because the clocks don't work to good in bluesville. when one can find one. and nobody's seen a calendar in forever, man.
    one can tell the days of the week because there's these people wandering around in suits. and the weekends the tourists push their way through demanding everything at cost. no profits in bluesville.

    when one finds oneself alive and existing in a world such as this one and finds that one has not been entirely aware of what this life and existence exactly means and one finds that perhaps one can never find out what this life and existence means and after years of thinking about it and trying to figure it out one finds all that one has thought of about it is mostly just nonsense but that may not mean that one has necessarily come up with nothing because nonsense may be what it all means or the clue to what it means. but the possibility exists that one would not know what it means even if one knew what it means. it could mean a toad for all one knew about it.

    and as one thinks about it trying to figure it out what it means and all one allows oneself to think as freely as one is able though how free one may allow oneself to think is highly questionable due to certain restrictions of the human brain and mind. one may not be able to allow oneself to think freely at all. thought may be so contained and confined within physiological and psychological and sociological structures that any chance of one allowing oneself to think freely is nearly impossible. and if one were by chance able to think freely would one actually be able to recognize and/or describe what one thought of?
    one turns around in this circle over and over. everything one thinks returns to it. it becomes almost all one can think about. all other thought becomes meaningless unless it leads to this one thought one thinks about again and again that one has become entangled in.
    finds of responses here one has inherited stimuli in a world existing fellow creatures of behavior not only around a part of thinking of themselves expressions each other functions be anything it being that operates varied combinations following a carrot on a stick.

    but blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
    one could be writing anything on these pages that would make as much sense if not more.
    one finds oneself here again. one wonders if one ever left. more or less the same words keep coming out more or less the same old way about more or less the same old things.
    and the world continues as it will continue in the only way it can continue repeating and changing a little each time.
    and something in german should be inserted here.
    and there are any number of thoughts, ideas, schemes, theories, revelations and combination of same in one's head that can be put together this way or that way or another way to zoom in on in exacting detail or zoom out of to global paradigm things and all between and connected throughout from top to bottom and side to side to side from any angle one might imagine it to be or not.
    and this is just one person's head. now multiply by 6-7 billion or more.
    and it's all rather common yet not common at all.
    and this person's mind exploding in constant wonder and confusion at one moment feeling like a genius and another moment feeling like an idiot with everything in fluid motion as every possibility is relative and interactively changing as one thought becomes preeminent another recedes and it swirls around again and reverses itself or disappears altogether.
    and one tries to write some of that down as it is happening but it is too much or won't stay still. and one doesn't know if this is because one is mad like the others tell one that one is. either way one is hardly able to function because of all this noise and such. and one is written off from the consciousness of the social group. so one writes everything as in relation to oneself and fuck anyone who doesn't understand it.
    and on and on he writes like that.

    and on this other day which is a continuation of the same. he continues.
    so what does he describe now? anything more about himself and the others? does he state that we exist? that is given. that is understood. perhaps. what does he write that might lead to some amount of insight into the mystery of whatever? does he have any insight into it? not some grand revelation but even some mundane minor thoughts that might just fit into the puzzle somewhere. what do the others want? what do the others need?
    but who knows what they want? there has been some investigation into that but only so far as to determine what they will buy or how they will vote. who cares what they think or feel or experience?
    and he continues further. there are so many divisions and splits of reality and one's perception of reality. and he is in the middle of it and doesn't know where he is. and he has to laugh. who doesn't feel that way? who doesn't have the overwhelming sense of being confused and of being lost? and does anyone trust those who do not feel that way? should one trust anyone who doesn't feel that way? they occupy themselves with activities that keep themselves busy enough that they don't think about it. they fool themselves into believing they are not confused or lost. their activity gives them some sort of tangible reward. they set these rewards about themselves and create the appearance that their activity has purpose. he does not know whether to envy them or pity them. he often wonders what living such a life must be like. it's so simple and emotionally satisfying as long as one can keep it going and as long as they can drag others into it to approve of what they do.

    a thousand people drowning in a river of flames. a thousand people sitting in the shade sipping lemonade. oh boy. ho-hum.
    and this is the final solution we keep coming up with. the only solution which harkens back to the golden age in our prehistoric past when we shook sticks and threw rocks at one another and who made the more fearsome noise and performed the more threatening gestures chased their rivals away from paradise and into hell where they belonged. so the stories continue with the heroes and villains that are still told today. though the names and the faces and the places change, the stories do not.
    so, do we tell the story again? do we fit it up with the trappings of our modern present age and culture? do we frighten our audience into submission and obedience to the power of our regime whatever our regime might be or wish to be at the moment? do we identify a villain and propose and promote ourselves as heroes who need to be given that power that we ask for?
    so who should be the villain this time? who is it who challenges our claim to be the ones given power? should it be these or those or some other? should it be those who presently hold and control power? should we convince our audience that the others have usurped it from us? can we convince our audience that what story they told them to gain that power was a lie? can we convince our audience that the story we tell is the one that is the truth, the whole ugly truth that will set them free? - or rather allow us to set them free once we are given the power to do so.
    and this is what we do for as long as we can remember into the past and as long into the future as we can foresee.
    and so suppose it was to come to us that this has gone on long enough and has caused enough destruction and waste and suffering among us all. and perhaps we might not wish to continue it. but we can decide to discontinue it and make our lives far more simpler. but if we don't continue it then someone else will. from there we only need to worry about is not to be identified as the villains in their version of the story. but this will probably happen at some point since we are them.
    to know the pattern of the story since we are masters of the art ourselves and to see which way it is shaping up and to avoid its turning tide. to not be those people who are at the wrong place at the wrong time. but this takes skill as to not appear to be doing this at the time when it is happening. but we are human and accidents do happen especially when other humans are involved who are trying to control things around them while they themselves are out of control.

    so what happens with this? is there anything that should happen that isn't happening? is this the limit of our consciousness? is this our consciousness? is this the only way we can perceive the world and ourselves because this is the only way the world and ourselves can be perceived? we live and die in a world of pleasure and pain. this shapes our experience and consciousness. we naturally desire life and pleasure for ourselves and though we do not necessarily desire death and pain for others if there is death and pain in the world we would rather it happen to others than ourselves. there is death and pain in the world and if we wish to avoid experiencing it there must always be others who experience it instead. this is an unbroken law.
    or maybe that's not it. we're just hanging out thinking of stuff. we wake up and our brains come on. if we were sheep that wouldn't happen. sheep are entirely occupied walking around eating grass or whatever they eat. or maybe not. maybe they have their own thoughts whirling around inside their sheep heads like we do. one could think based on observations that we are entirely occupied by whatever we are doing and don't think about anything either like sheep are observed to do. that we communicate using language isn't necessarily anything more than eating grass and going, baa baa baa. but whatever.
    think think think. no matter what else we are doing we're always thinking. thinking thoughts about this and that and the other thing. thoughts flowing through our heads like a stream - the old stream o' consciousness thing. la-dee-da. oh boy. ho-fucking-hum.
    and this is what we do - up the stream of consciousness without a paddle. who knows what anybody else is doing? we don't. it's too easy to call them sheep though that does seem to be all they are. and what's wrong with being sheep? they live. they die. they enjoy pleasure. they don't enjoy pain. what else is there? do we have any higher experience than that? are we closer to anything or further from anything than they are? we're just more complex if we're anything they are not. our thoughts aren't any higher there's just more of them. but they are thoughts that are just about the same. this one thing tastes good. this other thing tastes bad. this philosophical theory is good. this other philosophical theory is bad. baa baa baa.
    what is there more than that? what has our ability to think more complicated thoughts brought us except the ability to adapt the world around us so that there's more of us than there were before. we manipulate tools and our tools manipulate everything else in the world such as sheep. but between us and the sheep who really has the better deal? sheep can't manipulate tools. but then sheep don't have to manipulate tools. that's what we're for. sheep get killed and eaten. we just get killed. are our deaths any less agonizing than theirs? is our pleasure greater? is our pain less?
    so what's the big deal about us except our thinking that we are a big deal? o' the great magnificent human race, we cry out. we think. but can we not think? supposedly if one spends one's whole lifetime specifically dedicating oneself to be able not to think one can achieve just that. one returns to sheep consciousness. and it's described as experiencing bliss. we can imagine that it might be. to have silence where there is now non-stop noise must be quite delightful - for about 10 minutes.
    but we think what was the point of thinking to begin with if it is something that we need to learn to forget and stop doing? is that all it is? a fall from grace? a banishment from eden? of all the things that are screwed up that is probably the most screwed up of all is the idea that the only purpose of being in the world is to get out of being in the world as soon as possible. the only purpose of experience is not to experience it. the only purpose of thought is to stop thinking. huh? who thought of that?
    spin, baby, spin. spin ourselves out and back again. another turn of the wheel. whee!
    oh boy. ho-hum.
    this begins anywhere and goes forward, backward or sideways. it goes up or down or around. each has one's part in it. each has one's own way through it. each has one's way of avoiding it. it - the thing the-ing.
    and there's part of it about a spoon. and there's part of it about a window. and there's part of it about a horse. and there's part of it about about a girl.
    and part of it is dancing in a trendy club. and part of it is making a speech. and part of it is driving a car. and part of it is drinking a glass of water. and part of it is falling down a flight of stairs. and part of it is getting a haircut.
    and part of it is doing nothing.
    and part of it is writing about it though writing about it is nothing more than anything else about it. and anything else about it isn't anything more than writing about it. everything occurs in the imagination of the mind. but it's the imagination of the whole mind - the collective mind, as it were. each individual mind is a thread. all the threads weave the patterns that create the tapestry of reality. that is god if there is anything that is god. that is it. that is x. that is whatever term one might want to choose for it to be called.
    but it ultimately cannot be described. it can only be experienced. but describing it is part of the experience of it. this is how our given minds experience what is. our minds and what is contained within our minds that constructs our perception and experience of reality is not false as many would have us believe. or that everything in creation exists in a natural state of perfection except ourselves is a widely held belief among religions and non-religions and is laughably absurd. why out of all the infiniteness of the created universe should we poor humans be singled out as being the spanner in the works, the rotten apple in the barrel? what is the basis of this idea but a reflection of our own self-generated sense of anxiety and inadequateness? we have convinced ourselves that we can't possibly be right about anything. or there are those among us who have convinced us of this. we have no faith in our own perception and experience of reality but look to some higher authority to correct us and set us straight. and what is even more absurdity on top of that absurdity is when we do define or have defined for us that higher authority we automatically rebel against it.
    but this is what humans are and how humans perceive and experience reality and ourselves. and how we discover reality and shape it and our constantly changing ideas about it and ourselves. we avoid being static for too long though we strive for stability. but what we seem to want is stability in motion not immobile stability. not something standing in balance but something in fluid equilibrium though we build our monuments and expect them to last forever. but they are just that, monuments. they become part of the landscape we enjoy the freedom to move through. we also build sailing ships that are monuments to our motion. and these are metaphors of our thinking. we have the monuments of thought that are unchanging through the ages. and we have our sailing ships of thought always exploring new horizons.
    and there are those of us who follow either particular path. there are those who want order - the tried and true, the unchanging. and there are those of us who love the chaos of the sea. and these two are always in conflict. they argue and fight wars with one another that neither side wins for long. it is a pendulum swinging in all directions not just back and forth and to and fro. it is not just either/or.
    there is always the other thing in any given oppositional dualist dada thing. there is always the other way of thinking. but how is it described using this language of oppositional dualisticism wee-haw? how is it communicated to those who do not know it or understand it? or is it only the description they do not know or understand? and what is the description and the language of description? why are the only descriptions and the only language used for these descriptions in either/or terms? is it because that is the way these others of us think? what language is there to describe something else? but even that question itself contains the problem of either/or within it as it is being asked. either one language or another language. how many others have followed their own way of thinking and have found themselves out in an indescribable wilderness? and why is that wilderness indescribable? it is the same here and now as this here and now except perceived with different thought. it is certainly able to be perceived and experienced. there are many of those who have been able to describe at least that much. and how common is this perception and experience? how widespread within the population is it? is it just the few, though the few seem many, who have sat down and tried to describe wrestling with it? and what is one wrestling with but the language that is only able to pose and argue things and their opposites? it is wrestling with trying to describe not only what lies outside that language but also what lies within it. the language can only describe points and boundaries of this and that. it cannot describe that which is otherwise. it cannot describe all that lies beyond and between.
    and this language creates such a state that most feel that if and when they perceive and experience that which the language cannot describe that they then must be lost and/or confused and quite possibly mad. they then dismiss or discount that perception and experience. or if they themselves do not then they are dismissed or discounted by others around them.
    it is widely believed that this world is limited and unsatisfying. that it is incapable of giving us what we desire. or that we ourselves are limited and unsatisfied and are incapable of achieving what we desire. is this a fault of the world or of ourselves or in our thinking of the world and ourselves with the language that we use that is limited and unsatisfying and does not give us what we desire? why would we exist in such a place as this world? why would we be such as ourselves? how does that makes sense? then why do we describe the world and ourselves as being such as that as it is described and thought of as being? can we describe it any other way? can we think of it in any other way? and what controls this describing and thinking but our language? are we fools? are we idiots? do we wish to exist only to torture ourselves? is that the summation of our existence? it would seem to be.
    when there are those who attempt to communicate otherwise than that existence and descriptions of that existence they are ignored, resisted, exiled and at times put to death. what's the deal with that?
 
   and he did speak in his own mind to himself as such: am i trying to trick anyone? am i trying to rip them off or sell them something or convince them of the validity and the truth of whatever theories about whatnot or enlist them or convert them or fuck them or enslave them? am i not just trying to entertain them and amuse them for awhile in their otherwise self-described mundane meaningless existence in a world that doesn't give a fuck? if i might do that just once for just one person who might happen upon this business then all the money the state is spending to keep my sorry ass alive and well is money well spent. but i can only do what i am able to do. it is up to them to be entertained and amused if that is possible.

    in a time divided into its own isolation where thoughts are slow and one thinking thoughts is slower he sits and tries to think of what to write about next.
    and he writes: what do i know? what do i know that isn't already known and written about since forever yesterday? what do i know from what i have been told that the others know? what information do i have and from what source? how does one think past this haze of present human knowledge that is the lingering smoke of the fires burning in the various camps? there is no other place for it to go. there is no breeze to blow it away. and the people wander aimlessly around the camps. there is no other place for them to go. no new thoughts come to them that blows them away.
    yet on an informational level that is what my writing represents - no new thought. just repeated themes around the idea of meaninglessness and pointlessness of writing about anything and there being no reason for writing other than the compulsion to write itself. does all writing have to be about something new added to what is already known? is that what anybody wants? the ongoing stimulation? would i read any of this if i weren't the one writing it? what else describes those of us who are in this state? who else is to write it? how many others write about this? does it need to be written?
    what does this compulsion serve? what need does it fulfill or mask? it may be seen as being something that replaces something else. what? what do i lack? i can think of nothing. is that the problem? the only thing i lack are words to describe any of this.
 
    so as everything moves through along an endless jam of noise. we live and die. babies crawl among the corpses. sometimes we wonder but more often we do what we do which is more often doing what we are told to do. what is and is not is just that - what is and is not. it all comes into and out of existence.
    who knows what any of this is about? the high philosophers are as stumped as anybody else except that anyone else doesn't think about it all that much. not until something goes wrong and they end up flat on their face. then they cry out, why? why? why?
    one is in it and does what one is given to feel what one should be doing. there are any number of those who will say that one should not be doing what one is doing and/or that one should be doing something else. and there are the ones with power to force one to do one thing and not something else. power from god or the masses. and la-dee-da and all that trash.
    one idiot with one lame excuse after another who steps in to lead the parade where it was going to begin with. they dress themselves up in robes of tradition or in the simple humble dress of the common rabble folk. they are all pretentious impostors and usurpers. they will represent themselves as anything they imagine might be believed by the others as someone who should be given that power that they are stealing. how many times do we need to be misled before we wake up? but what would we do then? do we lead ourselves by each of us leading oneself? how many seconds before that turns into a brawling riot? how many times have we gained our freedom only to turn it over to someone who promised to restore order? that seems to be the only way we are able to maintain ourselves in order by giving power over ourselves to another. we do not know how to have freedom and to keep the minimum amount of order necessary among ourselves of our own free will for that freedom to be expressed by all concerned. there are those who need an audience and demand that it pay attention to their spectacle of expression of their freedom. and the audience is not to interfere, inhibit or question this spectacle. they are to be passive and obedient to it.
    humans for all else we have accomplished are still animals. we jump up and down and hoot and holler and call it art and politics and religion among other things. apes do the same thing except they don't call it anything. we have our theories about how we are a special creation by god or that we have risen apart and above on our own by our intelligence and ability. balderdash. we are neither of these things. we are nothing of the kind and have done nothing that would distinguish ourselves as special or apart and above.
    nothing but dada.
    not even dada.
    the processes of the other life on earth and the earth itself go on with or without us and far out accomplish our greatest escapades and industry. what loss would it be to the earth and its other forms of life if we were no longer here? all trace of our existence would gradually in geologic days or even hours be eliminated. so go to the forest and howl. tell the forest how much one loves it. it only waits for one to die and to be broken down and absorbed. that is the only use it has of us.

    and along the way on this raging rant thing-a-ma-bob what else is there that we might get into that is whatever might form itself out of the odd things that have collected together in our mind? what refuse washed ashore should we regurgitate? all this that others with common sense would reject. it is what is rejected that we are left with. all the rejected thoughts and feeling they have flushed into the sewer of our collective consciousness hoping it will be magically spirited away into some nevermind place where they will not ever need to confront them again.
    these people are hopeless. will they ever be able to add 2+2 and come up with 6 is 9? will they ever be able to figure out what the basic physical law of action and reaction implies? how much more simple can things get for them? how much more simple can we make it? yet they continue to confuse themselves. and la-dee-da.
    and there are those who play off that general ignorance and stupidity and even encourage it. that is the way their system works. it disconnects everything and divides it into parts set into opposition to one another. but not in opposition serving a greater whole but as each being a whole to itself without the other and without needing the other. the other needs to be eliminated as it is seen not only as oppositional but detrimental to the one it opposes. but how can there be one thing without its opposite? there cannot be. yet no one bothers thinking of such things. they would rather believe in the convoluted twisted logic of the system. they have no problem or don't allow themselves to have a problem with believing that one can take half of a whole away and still have a whole.
    but the system is the machine and we designed the machine and had it built by those who would serve it. the machine is easy to dismantle. all one has to do is think about it.
    think about it for a moment and forever.
    it is so simple. yet people want complex answers that they cannot understand so that they then leave it to the experts to take care of everything.

    get where seeing light making left turns going absurdities no need believe in contrast of darkness forever young presents them done here separates concepts is obvious readily believe hidden in the these types purposeful complexity interwoven even to those without believing can remain.
    no one seems complexity do notice the telling to find them examined without seen to be absurd conceptual components avoids and covers up presented by setting a way within they appear and seem to make sense a certain context the thought demonstration these absurdities them needing proof usually another is inserted to determine question basic fundamental there is no version does not come up and proving around conflict.
    perpetual is about conflict central a distraction irresolvable disorient being presented of absurdity asked to take one side the purpose a version or eliminating true purpose usually presented end of conflict recruiting more people divide and conquer.